On Thursday 5 December 2024, the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby gave his valedictory speech in the House of Lords.

The speech sparked a wave of controversy for its humorous tone and for ignoring the victims and survivors of John Smyth. It was the official independent report into the Church of England’s handling of Smyth’s abuse that led to Justin Welby announcing that he would resign his position as Archbishop with effect from 6 January 2025.

The following day, on Friday 6 December, the Archbishop “apologised wholeheartedly” for the hurt caused by his speech, saying:

“I understand that my words – the things that I said, and those I omitted to say – have caused further distress for those who were traumatised, and continue to be harmed, by John Smyth’s heinous abuse, and by the far reaching effects of other perpetrators of abuse.

“I did not intend to overlook the experience of survivors, or to make light of the situation – and I am very sorry for having done so.”

You can watch a video of Archbishop Justin’s speech in full, as well as the long tribute from the past President of the Methodist Conference, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, as well as tributes and comments from other peers taking part in the debate here.

Much has been said of the speech. I don’t intend to say much, but I will say this:

Before Thursday’s speech, I had been thinking that William Nye, the Secretary General of the Archbishops’ Council, must have been thanking God for Gregg Wallace, and perhaps penning a paper for General Synod proposing that they recognise Wallace as an Anglican saint – he having done more than anybody to limit coverage of the Church of England’s safeguarding failures since publication of report of the Makin Review.

On Thursday afternoon, after Justin Welby had delivered his speech, I was struck by how many people on social media were commenting that the Archbishop of Canterbury was using the same PR adviser as Wallace (this being after Wallace’s “women of a certain age” defence).

The speech was an appalling example of how disconnected Justin Welby is from the reality of safeguarding in the Church of England. He has resigned because of a safeguarding failure, and yet the victims of that failure were not mentioned. Instead, we have this line: “If you pity anyone, pity my poor diary secretary, who has seen weeks and months of work disappear in a puff of a resignation announcement.”

Yes – life is tough and hard for his staff. But nowhere near as tough and hard as it is for the victims of John Smyth and other victims and survivors of church-related abuse who are still struggling against a Church that refuses to listen.

Another sign of disconnect is this little gem: “The reality is that the safeguarding and care of children and vulnerable adults in the Church of England today is, thanks to tens of thousands of people across the Church, particularly in parishes, by parish safeguarding officers, a completely different picture from the past.”

Parish safeguarding officers do have a role to play, in making sure those who work with children and vulnerable adults are recruited safely, and that parish officials receive safeguarding training and in looking out for signs of abuse. But they do not get involved – they are not allowed to – when safeguarding allegations are made.

When abuse happens, the case management is taken on by diocesan safeguarding staff. When they get it wrong – either deliberately and wilfully, or inadvertently and negligently, or because they are following the instructions of the bishops and diocesan secretaries to whom they are accountable – that is when the problems occur.

The Archbishops’ Council’s National Safeguarding Team (NST) take over and run complainants ragged. Cases are allowed to drag on for years. The NST and the Archbishops’ Council consider complaints as “closed” while victims and survivors are still battling to be heard.

And even when victims and survivors bring in solicitors to make official complaints – as Gilo has done with William Nye – the Archbishops’ Council drag out the process for years, refusing to provide updates along the way. When an answer does eventually come, the Archbishops’ Council’s spin is always that “we are learning the lessons of the mistakes of the past” – ignoring the fact that the mistakes are STILL going on today.

Gilo’s case can be said to be “in the past”. But, actually, his re-abuse by the Archbishops’ Council is very much of today, as he is still waiting TODAY for answers to his complaint and he is still being treated badly.

The lack of thought given to victims and survivors in Justin Welby’s valedictory speech is proof – if proof was still needed – that the upper echelons of the Church of England still do not understand the safeguarding crisis that they are perpetuating.

I end my comments on Justin’s speech there.

On safeguarding, Justin Welby – along with the Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell and the Secretary General of the Archbishops’ Council, William Nye – has failed.

But his archbishopric should not be seen as a total failure. I have seen Justin Welby’s work at close quarters, through my former role as Director of Communications for the Anglican Communion. And I have personally benefited from his sensitive pastoral approach at a time of deep personal grief.

So I am glad that some peers felt able to pay tribute to him during the debate which featured his valedictory address. I wish him well in retirement and whatever life throw’s up next for him. But I do wish that he had listened to victims, survivors and their advocates, rather than the bureaucrats who control the Archbishops’ Council. If the senior leadership had listened, and acted, the Church of England would not be in crisis. And it would not be the dangerous place that it is.

• Should Church of England bishops have an automatic right to a seat in the House of Lords? If you think they shouldn’t, please sign this parliamentary petition.